News

Sept. 21/04
New Course! - This is a new course and will eventually be a numbered grad. course (551 is the "selected topics" umbrella course).

Description

Format

Throughout the course, students will be ask to identify readings we can all read together.  For example, such readings could  be a complete collection of papers  on a single topic, or a single paper to round out a partial list of readings for a topic.

Contact Information

Evaluation

Meeting Details

Meeting Schedule

Golding, D. (1992) A social and programmatic history of risk research, in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch 1. (pp. 23-52).

Questions

1. Outline Krimsky's different forms of theoretical explanation.
2. To what extent are these forms of theoretical explanation overstated?
3. What is the difference between "individualism" and "contextualism"?

Risk concepts and psychometric risk as foundation

Renn, O. (1992) Concepts of risk: A clarification, in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch 3. (pp. 53-79).

Slovic, P. (1992) The role of theory in risk studies, in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch 1. (pp. 3-22).

Starr, C. Social benefit versus technological risk, Science, 165(Sept.), 1232-1238.

1. According to Renn, why are the positivistic view of risk and the social constructionist view poor descriptions of social reality?
2. Comment on the statement, "If we could simply get people to understand the true risks of various substances/activities, we would  have a far easier time helping people focus their risk-related actions appropriately".
3. Compare the revealed preference approach to studying risk with the expressed preference approach.
4. Outline the key limitations of both the expressed preference approach and the revealed preference approach.
5. Why does Renn claim there is no approach that can integrate all of the approaches in his sevenfold classification of "risk perspectives".  Do you agree (good essay topic)?  Explain.
6. What role does stigma play in risk perception?
7. What is intuitive toxicology and how does it move risk perception research forward?
8. What methods might be used to explain the many patters Slovic and his colleagues have observed?

Evidence in Risk Research and the Social Amplification and Attenuation Framework

Burger, J. (2000) Consumption advisories and compliance: The fishing public and the deamplification of risk,  Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(4): 471-488

Kasperson, R. E. (1992) The social amplification of risk: Progress in developing an integrative framework , in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch 6. (pp. 153-178).

Leschine, T. (2002) Oil spills and the social amplification and attenuation of risk, Spills Science and Technology Bulletin, 7(1-2): 63-73.

Taubes, G. (1995) Epidemiology faces its limits, Science, 269(5221): 164-169.

Questions

1. What are the key "disjunctures" that motivated Kasperson to develop and integrated framework?
2. What are the most serious criticisms of the social amplification and attenuation of risk framework?
3. To what extent do Burger and Leschine add to the social amplification/attenuation of risk framework or do these empirical examples simply take the framework as given?
4. How does Taubes' discussion of the limits of epidemiology relate to the assumption(s) which form the basis of the social amplification and attenuation of risk framework (or is it unrelated)?
5. What are some implications of Taubes' paper for the practice of "risk research" (broadly defined).

Cultural Theory of Risk

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky A. (1982) Risk and Culture, Berkeley CA: University of California Press. (pp. 1-15; 174-198).

Tansey, J. (2004) Risk as politics, culture as power, Journal of Risk Research, 7(1), 17-32.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2002) Environmental risk concern and preferences for energy-saving measures, Environment and Behavior, 34(4), 455-78.

Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S. and Marris, C. 1998 Testing cultural theory of risk in France, Risk Analysis 18(6), 729–739.

Marris, C., Langford, I. and O’Riordan, T. 1998 A quantitative test of cultural theory of risk perception, Risk Analysis 18(5), 635–647

Questions

1. How are the key conclusions from Douglas and Wildavsky different from the "social construction" of risk?
2. What are Tansey's key objections to the way cultural theory has been used in risk research?
3. How much variation in risk perception does cultural theory "explain"?
4. Describe the mythological strengths and limitations to the three empirical papers.

Due: Dec 17/04
Worth: 40%

Compare, and critically assess any two of the following perspectives on risk in a formal essay - 5000 word max. (12 double-spaced pages).  Be sure to cite the strengths and limitations of each in relation to the other.  Cite current empirical research to support your arguments.

1. technical
2. economic
3. psychological
4. sociological
5. cultural
6. geographical

Assignment 2